Mark Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let me also join my colleague in agreeing with the Senator from Illinois on his comments, and I, too, will join him on voting in favor of the Shaheen amendment. It is important we not only take on this question of opioid drug abuse but that we also make sure we fund the program. I thank him for his leadership. Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of moments and join with many of my colleagues to talk about an issue of enormous importance on the constitutional obligation to fulfill our duty in terms of reviewing whomever the President of the United States nominates for the Supreme Court. I wish to start, though, by saying a few words about Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and to offer my condolences to his family. Whether you agreed or disagreed with Judge Scalia's decisions--and mechanically I disagreed with many of them--he was a remarkable jurist and he was a remarkable individual. Over the last 10-plus years, I got to know him and his wife Maureen more in a social setting. He was warm, witty, charming, brilliant, and he will be missed by all who agreed or disagreed with him. My thoughts continue to be with Maureen and his family. I rise, I think, almost in the mode of what I believe Justice Scalia would have said as someone who was a strict constructionist and someone who believed so firmly in the words of the Constitution. The words of the Constitution are quite clear in article II, section 2, where it says the President shall nominate Justices to the Supreme Court, and it is the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent. So my request to all colleagues in this body is simply let's do our job. It is not if the President will nominate, it is when the President will nominate--and I hope he nominates soon--we should give that nominee their due consideration, a fair hearing, and then an up-or-down vote. The President has repeatedly voiced his strong commitment to nominating an eminently qualified replacement. That is his duty, and we must do ours. To those who suggest we should wait and let the American people decide, the truth is, they already did. In 2012, the American people voted to return President Obama to the White House for a second 4-year term. That 4-year term doesn't end until January 20, 2017. I believe there is ample time to vet a nominee and still wrap up this process this spring. Are we going to allow politics to totally overtake the work of this body? Are we resigned to a complete and utter failure to govern until next January? I know the Presiding Officer and I both share a common background; that is, a background in business. It is remarkable to me. No business in America--no business in the world--would operate under the presumption that because it is a Presidential year, that somehow we can default on all of our duties and simply kick over every issue until next year. If we operated a business that way, we would be out of business. I believe it is absolutely essential that when the President--and I hope expeditiously--nominates an individual to the Supreme Court, that this body do its job constitutionally: review that applicant, meet with that applicant, hold hearings on that nominee, and then give that nominee the up-or-down vote the Constitution requires. The remarkable thing is in a year where there is a lot of commentary about what the public wants, I can at least tell my colleagues what the public wants in Virginia. They want us to do our job. I have received an overwhelming response from Virginians from one end of the Commonwealth to the other. They are expressing their opinion clearly about how the nomination process should move forward. A lot of Virginians are expressing their thoughts about what kind of nominee the Senate should confirm or not confirm, but what they are not saying is that the U.S. Senate should punt on this constitutional responsibility. They want us to do our job. Over the past week, what I have found most striking is the awkward public position held by so many people who otherwise claim to be advocates of a strict reading of the words of the U.S. Constitution, who somehow are saying--imagining something that doesn't appear in the Constitution, that a President or at least this President in his last year--we are not going to follow the Constitution. We are going to kick it over until next year. I believe that is irresponsible. I believe it is inappropriate. I believe that does not follow the interpretation of the Constitution and quite honestly I don't believe it would follow what Justice Scalia, who was a strict constitutionalist, would want to see this body do. Yet we saw some on the other side of the aisle, literally within hours of Justice Scalia's passing, saying: No vote. No proceeding. We are not going to do our job. We saw certain members of the leadership meet yesterday with the President, again reaffirming their unwillingness to do their job. This failure to act, this failure to do our constitutional duty, could result--will result--in a vacancy on the Supreme Court stretching close to a year, across two distinct terms of our highest Court. Over that time, the Supreme Court could be deciding extremely important cases, and in many ways they are not going to function as the Constitution laid out. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle often quote President Reagan. President Reagan himself said: ``Every day that passes with a Supreme Court below full strength impairs the people's business in that crucially important body.'' As a matter of fact, if we don't do our job, in effect, what we will be doing is potentially shutting down another branch of government. Regardless of where we fall on the political spectrum, if there is one message we have heard loud and clear over the last couple of years, the American people do not abide shutting down various branches of government. The American people deserve better than this. I would again urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to step up and do their job. Let's give the President's Supreme Court nominee the appropriate respect, hear them out, have those hearings, and give the Senate a chance to exercise its will in a straight up-or-down vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins from Maine for her comments today and for her good work on the Intelligence Committee and for her good work on the Homeland Security Committee and the fact that she has thought through these issues in a different framework--when our country was attacked--after 9/11. I would simply add that if some in Congress or elsewhere had come through with this kind of collaboration a few years back, we might not now be having two cases--one in New York and one in California--where, at least it appears at first blush, the courts are coming at it from very different directions. Let me reemphasize that in America the only solution here could simply drive criminals and terrorists to foreign-based technology, hardware, and software. In many ways, to get this right, if we are going to prevent a balkanization of the Internet, which is not in America's interests and not in most countries' interests, we need to at least think through this from an international perspective. Let us hear now from a former Governor, like myself, and a great member of the Intelligence Committee. I thank him for joining in this effort. As Senator Collins said, we have a broad breadth of ideological viewpoints from these eight bipartisan original sponsors here in the Senate, and I think more will be joining us. I would simply add that on a day where a lot of the Nation's focus is on Super Tuesday and on some of the activities that are taking place in the Presidential debates, it is great to see such responsible Members from both parties step forward in a bipartisan way to address a very serious issue, both today and in the future, for our country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, he stated that correctly. This is not an either/or circumstance. We have to protect Americans' privacy. We have to make sure we protect Americans' lives and liberty from criminals and terrorists. We also need to ensure that we continue to promote American innovation. And I believe there is a way through this, and I appreciate his good work as we move forward on this important piece of legislation. Let me ask someone who has seen this process work before, a longtime member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Homeland Security Committee who helped shape this legislation, my friend and colleague from Maine.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have an inquiry. I believe there will be a series of speakers coming to the floor to address the issue of digital security. I don't know if my colleague, the Senator from Ohio, has a long statement.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first of all, I thank both of my colleagues for their very important work on the issue before the Senate today. I, like them, have a State where both opioid and heroin abuse is taking too many lives and destroying too many families. I look forward to successfully moving forward on this legislation. Digital Security Mr. President, I rise to join several of my colleagues in a conversation on digital security. Since last year, I have been working with the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Texas Republican Michael McCaul, to set up a Commission of experts to study digital security and issues around encryption. These issues have been somewhat in the news, and we have seen court cases in both California and New York. I say to my colleagues that this is one component the Commission is trying to address. We are at the beginning of a debate that is even broader than the current cases being litigated in California and New York, which will encompass the whole world with digital security. If you think the issues we face now are challenging, as our country and the world move more toward the Internet, such as having your refrigerator respond to your voice, this issue around digital security is only going to grow. I have a background with the technology community and Chairman McCaul has a background with the law enforcement community. Unfortunately, over the last few months, we have seen folks from the tech community, the law enforcement community, and the privacy community talk past each other too often. We have seen this issue addressed without a common set of facts. We have now seen situations arise that have basically pitted law enforcement against technology. We think the approach we are taking--bipartisan legislation that was introduced on Monday--is the appropriate way to go. I am joined by my partner in the Senate, Senator Gardner. We have Senator Collins, Senator Bennet, and my good friend Senator King. Mr. President, regardless of where people fall in this debate, digital security tools are terribly important. Encryption is essential to protecting our personal information, our financial information, our intellectual capital, and our national security, and this is one issue in which the heads of law enforcement and the heads of the intelligence community as recently as 2 weeks ago--Senator King and Senator Collins, who are on the Intelligence Committee--have said that encryption is here to stay and is extraordinarily important. We have seen challenges around this technological innovation come very quickly. Think about this: Nearly 2,000 new applications are submitted to the App Store every day. That is how quickly this world is changing. The majority of these new applications that are added to that App Store are actually produced overseas. Two-thirds of these new apps use some level of encryption. I follow this from a policy standpoint but also my personal background in the telecommunication industry for over 20 years. I can say that the networks we deal with today in terms of the Internet, the cloud, are infinitely more complicated than the distributed top-down network that existed in the 1990s when the Congress most recently addressed some of these issues. The Internet today is no longer top down. The fundamental architecture of the Internet is decentralized and resilient. We have seen on countless occasions in the past that telecom traffic shifts quickly from one area to another, and attempts by any government to channel that traffic in a certain way in fact often results in shifts that make it harder for government, law enforcement, and intelligence to stay abreast of the activity. Obviously, Mr. President, many of these issues have been public since Edward Snowden's disclosure 3 years ago. I think that disclosure did great harm to our country. We have seen more recently, in the press, this debate crystallize after terrorist events and court activities in both California and New York. What we are doing--these Members in the Senate and Members in the House--in a bipartisan way is saying: Let's sit down together and work through a common set of facts, a common collaborative approach, so that before more time elapses and positions harden any further, we bring something together now to sort through these complicated issues. We all need to be working, as I said before, from the same set of facts. We need a framework for collaborative conversation. Too often I have heard from law enforcement and tech in recent months that we need to get into a room and try to sort these things through. Unfortunately, a static, American-only solution won't get us solving the problem. I believe it will simply drive the bad guys, the criminals and terrorists--at least the smart ones, anyway--off of American technology, away from American platforms, and move more and more criminals and terrorists to foreign-based hardware and software and at the end of the day actually make the safety and security of the United States far more out of reach. I know at the outset some of my colleagues here questioned whether a commission is the right way, done too often. Congress has used commissions in the past to punt the solution. The model we have taken, working with great assistance from Senator Collins, is the 9/11 Commission. In the event of a national tragedy, a congressionally mandated Commission came together on a series of policy recommendations, the overwhelming majority of which were implemented by the Congress. That is why the 16-member Commission, modelled after the 9/11 Commission, has been endorsed by a wide range of stakeholders, from the tech sector, to respected academic and legal experts and distinguished national security figures. As a matter of fact--and this doesn't happen that often--our Commission proposal has even been endorsed by the editorial boards of both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. These validators agree with us: A bipartisan, bicameral Digital Security Commission is a productive path forward. All these issues are not easy. What is great about America is that we are a country of innovators and of problem-solvers. I know that if we stop talking past each other and put the right people in a room, we can find the right solutions that protect us all, and then Congress can act. Mr. President, I know we are going to hear from a number of my colleagues. I would like to now yield the floor to my friend and colleague on this issue, the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Gardner.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today the Senate voted on the confirmation of Dr. Robert Califf to serve as Commissioner of Food and Drugs, Department of Health and Human Services. While I was unable to vote today, I would have supported Dr. Califf's nomination, just as I supported proceeding to cloture on his nomination in Monday evening's vote. The Food and Drug Administration has lacked a permanent Commissioner for almost a year, despite its role overseeing the safety of 25 percent of goods sold in the United States, including food, drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, and vitamin supplements. I believe that Dr. Califf, a Duke cardiologist and clinical trial researcher endorsed by over 100 physician and patient groups, is well qualified to oversee this critical mission. I look forward to working with Dr. Califf to implement key public health priorities, including examining ways to tackle rising prescription drugs prices, improve clinical trials, and combat the opioid epidemic. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I regret missing the vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the veto message on S.J. Res. 22, a bill that would block implementation of the Waters of the United States rule and prevent the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers from reissuing a regulation that is substantially similar in the future. I voted against S.J. Res. 22 last fall and, had I been present, I would have voted to uphold the President's veto. While this rule is not perfect, it provides important environmental protection efforts.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. It decreases our revenue line going forward. It does take some of the things, particularly in international tax reform, off the table. There are arguments that some of these being made permanent may make it easier. I will give you an example. The R&D tax credit is something that most of us on both sides of the aisle support. Here is the kind of only-in-Washington math that takes place. We are making permanent the R&D tax credit and not paying for it. Yet, if next year we decided to cut back on the R&D tax credit, that would be viewed as additional revenue to the bottom line, even though the cost of it has never been built in. Again, people who maybe are watching might say: I don't understand that accounting. Let me assure you: If you questioning that accounting, then welcome to Washington, DC, and Federal Government accounting and budget lines. I think this will make it more challenging. There are some benefits, as I said earlier--predictability to our business community. I would echo what the Senator from Maine has said. At the end of the day, we are simply transferring the obligations from our responsibility to that of our kids and grandkids. Long term, that is not going to give them the same kind of country that we all inherited.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I know my friend from West Virginia and I compliment the Senator from Maine. Before these two great former Governors came to this body, there were many times I would stand up and rail on these issues. It is great to have other folks who balanced budgets and made hard choices in their careers. I welcome the opportunity to share a couple of my thoughts. I will not repeat all of the comments Senator Manchin made. I concur with the vast majority of them. The data is overwhelming. I know the Presiding Officer has also taken on this issue. There are some good things, so let me start with some of the good. As someone who feared that at some point this tax extender package might exceed $800 billion or get close to $900 billion, I think it is an interesting place when folks are celebrating the fact that it is only $680 billion of unpaid-fors. In many ways, there is a lot to commend in the policy choices made by both sides. On the Democratic side, making permanent the earned-income tax credit is, frankly, a policy that was initiated by a Republican President and called the best anti-poverty program around. Expanding and making that permanent is a step in the right direction. The child tax credit is a policy raised by both sides, and making that permanent and expanding it makes an enormous amount of sense. I know, as well, that from a business standpoint, one of the challenges businesses face in an ever more competitive world is lack of predictability. So for certain areas, such as the R&D tax credit and 179 expensing, it is appropriate and timely that we make those provisions permanent. I know there may be differences, particularly even on my side. The bonus depreciation provisions are nice to have, but I am not sure I know any business that makes that decision on capital investment based upon bonus depreciation, and the fact that it is winding down over 5 years is a great step in the right direction. I have some concerns about some of the international tax provisions, not because of the merits of the system but as someone who believes strongly that to keep America competitive, we need international tax reform. If we take things off the table now, the ability to bring those back to get the kind of comprehensive tax reform we need in the long haul makes those challenges more difficult. Let me again build on Senator Manchin's comments. I want to be respectful of my colleagues' time and make this brief. As Senator Manchin said, anybody in this body that tries to say this is all the Republicans' fault or it is all the Democrats' fault doesn't know their history. There are no clean hands. As Senator Manchin mentioned, the good news is we are actually at a relatively low rate of annual deficit. The challenge is that, because of unthoughtful behavior by those of us in this Chamber and many that preceded us, now the aggregate debt our Nation faces is $18.5 trillion, and it will go up. I talked to a group of high school students this morning and said: The biggest challenge you are going to inherit is this massive amount of debt. If we are not careful, within a few years the Federal Government of the United States will be a social insurance party and an army and nothing else. Yesterday Senator Cantwell spoke to this. I know the Federal Reserve appropriately started to inch up interest rates. With this aggregate debt--by the way, we just added $680 billion more to this debt over the next 10 years through these unpaid-for tax extenders--interest rates go up one percentage point. At 100 basis points, that is more than $140 billion. We can have $140, $150, $180, depending on how they collect it. But let's take the conservative, $140 billion a year of additional spending off the top before we spend on any other priority. That is more than this government spends on the Department of Homeland Security and on the Department of Education combined. So at some point we do have to say ``no mas.'' At some point--and I hope it will be starting next year--we will step back and look at this holistically. Even though there are good policies in this extender package, the overall aggregate is a challenge. Two last points. We worked on a transportation bill in this body. While I supported the policy goals when it was here on the stand-alone, I voted against it because the pay-fors were a hodgepodge that basically had nothing to do with transportation. It is remarkable to me as a businessman--not as a Senator, but as a business guy. You look at your balance sheet on your expenditure side and your revenue side. They are both spending. Purely from a government standpoint, you are spending on the Tax Code or you are spending programmatically. When we spend on investments like transportation, we have to pay for them. When we spend in the Tax Code, suddenly there is a free pass that these items never have to be paid for. Yet going forward, when we look at our budget next year, we will have less ability because the revenues have been decreased over a 10-year period of $680 billion. I know my colleagues will speak to these issues. I want to make a final point. I am not sure of my colleagues' stand on this, but it is of grave concern to me. I supported the Affordable Care Act. I think there are good things in it; I think there are problems that need to be fixed. But one of the components of the Affordable Care Act that even its greatest critics point out is that it actually was paid for. Some of those pay-fors, we are paying for. They were policy choices; one in particular was the so-called Cadillac tax. The remarkable thing about the Cadillac tax was that was the one point of agreement--whether you are an economist on the left or the right-- that not only would it generate revenues for the so-called ACA, but it would also be one of the most powerful reform packages to hold the overall cost of health care down. Perhaps due to an election year rush and because the pressure is on both sides, Congress is taking its proverbial punt. Rather than fixing the Cadillac tax or rather than fixing the medical device tax, we are delaying the implementation of both of these revenue sources. I will make a wager now with any Senator in this body that while the promise of this delay is only for 2 years, 2 years from now there will be another reason to delay additionally. In doing so, what we do is undermine the financial legs as well as some of the policy legs of the ACA, and in a State such as mine where we have not expanded Medicaid, we provide fodder to those who want to delay the expansion of Medicaid because they are afraid that the Federal Government will not honor its commitments. By delaying the implementation of these pay-fors, unfortunately, I think we strengthen their argument. I thank both of my colleagues. They are both dear friends--the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Maine. We have sometimes been lonely voices in our caucuses on these issues. With that, I want to turn this over to my friend, the Senator from Maine--who, like the Senator from West Virginia, has balanced budgets, has made tough choices--to speak on the issue of the tax extenders and the omnibus, Mr. King.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to the significant contributions public servants make to our Nation each day. It appears that we are close to the final conclusion to the budget and tax extenders debate, and hopefully we will soon all be able to go home to see our families. I have a little easier opportunity with that than the Presiding Officer. It does appear that this year we may be able to put together a 2-year budget process, which is a step in the right direction. Too often Congress punts on its public responsibilities with stopgap solutions to our country's problems. Through all these challenges, though, our public servants, particularly our Federal employees, with little recognition and less fanfare work through these ups and downs to improve Americans' lives.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, since 2010, I have come to the Senate floor on an occasional basis to honor exemplary Federal employees, a tradition started by my friend, the former Senator from Delaware Ted Kaufman. Today I am going to continue that tradition as we get to the close of this year. I am pleased to honor a great Federal employee, Kevin Stricklin, who also happens to be a Virginian. As the administrator for coal at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mr. Stricklin leads a team that enforces safety rules, improves industry compliance, and executes rescue and recovery operations. On his watch, the number of coal miners who died in accidents last year, 16, while still too high, was the lowest ever recorded in the history of the United States. In addition, the number of mines with chronic violations dropped from 51 in 2010 to 12 in 2014, and the number of citations against mines fell from more than 96,000 in 2010 to less than 63,000 in 2014, even as inspections increased. After the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster in 2010, Mr. Stricklin was at the frontlines of implementing reforms to improve mine safety, including quarterly inspections, surprise inspections for repeat violators, and a program that identifies habitual safety lapses. When accidents have occurred, Mr. Stricklin's creativity and calm under pressure have saved countless lives. In a 2002 accident, a Pennsylvania coal mine flooded, trapping nine miners. Mr. Stricklin and his team devised a plan to drill a 6\1/2\-inch hole and inject compressed air into it. Their plan provided oxygen to the miners and prevented the water level from rising any further. The miners survived and were hoisted to the surface using a capsule the team helped design. Following a 2006 accident in West Virginia, rescuers' efforts were impeded by limitations in communicating over long distances. The protocol at that time was 1,000 feet. The team's solution was to develop a wireless fiber-optic system that extended communication up to 5 miles. Mr. Stricklin and his team improved the standard by more than 26 times. Like so many other Federal employees, they went above and beyond because it was in the country's best interest, not because they expected praise or recognition. Mr. Stricklin, whose two grandfathers and father were all coal miners, describes his objective as being ``for each miner to go home as safe and as healthy at the end of the day as they started at the beginning of the day.'' I am proud to rise today to recognize Mr. Stricklin's dedication to public safety and commitment to public service. I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking him, his team, and, frankly, during the holiday season, all Federal Government employees at all levels of service to our country for their contributions and hard work. As we go through these final days of debate--and hopefully, as I said at the outset, we will get a chance to spend time with our families over the holidays--I do think it is important that we also take a moment to reflect on the close to 2 million civilian Federal employees who serve our Nation in so many ways each and every day without fanfare. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, due to a prior commitment, I regret I was not present to vote on six amendments to H.R. 3762, the Budget Reconciliation Act. Had I been present, I would have voted yes on amendment No. 2908, Manchin-Toomey expanded background checks, and amendment No. 2910, denying firearms to suspected terrorists. I strongly support these commonsense gun safety proposals. In addition, I would have supported amendment No. 2892, Senator Shaheen's funding for mental illness and substance abuse services, and amendment No. 2907, Senator Bennet's proposal to improving access to care at the Veterans Administration. However, I would have voted no on amendment No. 2912, Cornyn side-by-side to No. 2910; amendment No. 2914, Grassley side-by-side to No. 2908; and amendment No. 2899, Paul refugee resettlement.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today the Senate voted on the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, H.R. 36. While I was unable to vote today, I would have opposed this bill, which would have amended the Criminal Code to prohibit any person from performing an abortion after 20 weeks. As the father of three daughters, I believe that a woman's health, not politicians in Washington, should drive important medical decisions. It is critical that we as a nation continue to have a meaningful and respectful dialogue about an issue we all care about deeply, and I do not believe that this bill would have advanced that dialogue.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues in speaking on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. While this deal is far from perfect, I believe it is the best option available to us right now for preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. I share many of the concerns with this agreement that have been expressed by my colleagues, but the choice I ultimately had to make was between accepting an imperfect deal or facing the serious ramifications throughout the world if Congress rejects a deal that has the support of the international community, including many of our allies. As I reviewed this agreement, I kept two fundamental questions in mind: No. 1, does this agreement advance the goal of keeping Iran free of nuclear weapons, and No. 2, is there a viable alternative that would be superior to this deal? As many colleagues before me have outlined, this deal outlines a significant reduction in Iran's fissile material stockpile, reducing their uranium stockpile by 98 percent. It restricts Iran's production capacity and completely removes their ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium. It further limits Iran's research and development activities. These reductions and restrictions on Iran's nuclear infrastructure will extend Iran's breakout time from a matter of months to at least 1 year over the next 15 years. This agreement also established a verification regime that includes continuous inspections. With the assistance of our intelligence community, verification goes beyond the four corners of this agreement. What this means is that we will have significantly more information about Iran's nuclear program with this deal than we would have without it. The other major question we have to ask is, Is there a viable alternative to this deal? I have given those opponents numerous opportunities to convince me there was a viable alternative. The conclusion I have reached is that there is not. I have been a strong supporter of tough international sanctions that helped bring Iran to the negotiating table in the first place. Since I have been in the Senate, I have supported every important piece of sanctions legislation passed by Congress. But during my deliberations, I spoke with representatives of many foreign governments--not the EU or the P5+1 entirely but also those nations, particularly in Asia--about whether they would be willing to uphold sanctions to pressure Iran if we turned this deal down. In virtually every case, the response I got from allies was that if Congress were to reject this deal, the vast international sanctions that we have in place would fall apart. As we saw in the literally dozens of years prior, just U.S. unilateral sanctions alone are not enough. I have determined that moving forward with this international agreement is our best option now to advance U.S. and world security. I know we have other Members who want to speak, but let me add a couple of final comments. While I support this deal, I believe there are additional actions Congress can and should take to strengthen it. I want to make sure that we--the United States--have the ability to respond to any Iranian activities with all means at our disposal. While the inspections provided in this deal will give us better insight, there is more we can do. I am working with my colleagues--both supporters and opponents of the deal--on efforts to shore up its weaker points. I will work to clarify that Congress retains the ability to pass sanctions against Iran for nonnuclear misbehavior. My hope is that in future legislation, we will spell out that this agreement will not shield foreign companies if sanctions must be reimposed because of Iranian violations. And I will seek more reporting from the administration, including on how Iran uses any funds received through sanctions relief. Moving forward, I will work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure Israel's security. I will press the administration and work with my colleagues to ensure that Israel preserves a qualitative military edge. I will look for ways to strengthen our commitments to Israel and support additional efforts to stop Iran from advancing both the nuclear agenda and from other efforts to destabilize the region. Let me assure you that this agreement is the beginning and not the end of our combined international efforts to keep Iran free--not just today and not just for the next 15 years but forever--from having a nuclear weapon. Before my colleague from Delaware speaks, I want to thank him for his efforts and many of us who spent a great deal of time the last few weeks of August talking about how we could build upon this agreement to make it stronger. He received assurances from the President and letters. I know that he and I and others are working on how we can even move beyond those assurances to make sure that we can look back on this agreement and recognize that we move not only the issue of peace but the issue of security going forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand we are moving back to the incredibly important debate on Iran. I will come back and address that a little bit later. Remembering Alison Parker and Adam Ward and Paying Tribute to Vicki Gardner Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to pay tribute to the victims of another horrific act of gun violence. On August 26, a gunman opened fire during a live television interview at Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia. By now, I think everyone in this Chamber and all across the country saw that event on live television. The gunfire killed WDBJ News 7 reporter Alison Parker, News 7 photographer Adam Ward, and the shooting severely wounded Vicki Gardner, a local chamber of commerce official who was being interviewed. I know my colleague Senator Kaine has already spoken on this, but I speak for everyone in the Commonwealth when I say our hearts go out to the Parker family and the Ward family. We are all pleased to hear that Vicki Gardner was released from the hospital on Monday, and she is on the road to recovery. So Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia is now added to the all-too- familiar, heartbreaking litany--Charleston, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Tucson, and Virginia Tech. It became clear in the days following the 26th that Alison Parker and Adam Ward represented the best of their community. The outpouring of love and support for them and their families was remarkable. I had a number of conversations with Alison's father Andy, whom I knew from local government, and I will be meeting with him later today. Vicki Gardner, who was released from the hospital, will soon, hopefully, be getting back to her job at the chamber of commerce. We feel--particularly those of us in Virginia--as if we knew Alison, Adam, and Vicki because the crime committed against them was so horrible and the details were reported so widely. How many more parents must lose their children to gun violence? How many more anxious families must maintain a lonely vigil at the hospital before all of us here in Congress move on commonsense gun legislation? More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms in this country every year. The last time Congress meaningfully engaged in a debate about gun reform was more than 2 years ago, after Sandy Hook. Even after the horrific loss of 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown at Sandy Hook, the Senate was still unable to pass responsible, commonsense reforms, such as closing the gun show loophole. Since Sandy Hook, there have been at least 136 school shootings in America. That is an average of one every week. Probably like most of us, there are a lot of meetings we take in the Senate that kind of blur before our eyes. I will never forget the meeting with the Newtown families after that tragedy. I would have thought and would have expected with their grief that these families would have come in and asked for a whole array of legislative solutions, but they didn't. The families I met with came in and simply had one very reasonable, commonsense request of Congress: universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with serious mental illness. Let me acknowledge that won't prevent every shooting. It is not a magical fix for violent, disturbed people who are determined to do harm, but it is a start at tackling the epidemic of gun violence. I am a supporter of the Second Amendment--for many years I had an ``A'' rating from the NRA--but I believe background checks do not infringe on the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, gun owners understand this. In fact, a greater proportion of gun owners support requiring background checks for all gun sales than do non-gun owners. In a recent survey, 85 percent of gun owners and 83 percent of non-gun owners--so gun owners more than non-gun owners--supported requiring background checks for all gun sales. Reasonable people can disagree about what additional steps might need to be taken, but the facts are not up for debate. Background checks do work, and they keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Brady law has blocked almost 2.4 million gun purchases since its enactment in 1994. Almost 200,000 purchases were blocked in the most recent year in which we have records. But, as we know, background checks aren't performed on every purchase. In fact, a significant number of transfers are done with no check whatsoever to determine whether a prospective buyer can legally possess a gun. There is no reason why we shouldn't have a comprehensive background check system on all firearms sales. The Senate came close to making progress on this in the weeks following Sandy Hook. I want to particularly cite two colleagues, Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey, who both have strong records of support for the Second Amendment, who introduced and fought for bipartisan legislation that would have expanded background checks for many private gun sales, while still allowing families to appropriately transfer firearms within their family. However, this responsible and commonsense proposal fell short. The cycle of tragedy followed by outrage followed by inaction has become all too familiar. These tragic events are not isolated in any one part of the country--Charleston, Aurora, Tucson, Roanoke. Each of them breaks our hearts. We should not and cannot simply acknowledge and accept them as the status quo. We must not be content, and we must recognize that Congress, those of us in this body, have an ability to act. Thoughts and prayers for victims are not enough; we need to take responsible action. We can debate and should debate how far reform measures should go, but at the very least, we should look at a way to renew a push for more meaningful background checks. We must do more to make sure criminals and those who are dangerously mentally ill cannot purchase guns. We must work together to make sure local and State governments have the resources and place an appropriate priority on inputting the correct data into the national background check system. As recently as the end of June, Senators Toomey and Manchin indicated they were considering ways to renew their efforts at meaningful background checks. I want to state clearly today that they will have my full support in this effort. I call on my colleagues to work with us to get legislation expanding meaningful background checks to the floor of the Senate before the end of this year. I can think of no better way to honor the lives of Alison Parker and Adam Ward and the thousands of other American families touched by gun violence. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Federal Information Security Management Reform Act, FISMA Reform, of 2015, which I introduced today with Senator Collins, Senator Mikulski, Senator Coats, Senator Ayotte, and Senator McCaskill. This legislation will give the Department of Homeland Security the power to make sure that civilian government agencies--like OPM--have adequate cyber defenses against these kinds of attacks. Cyberattacks present one of the most critical national and economic threats that this Nation faces. As the FBI Director recently stated, there are two types of companies in the U.S.--those that have been hacked by China, and those that do not yet know they have been hacked. Estimates by the Center for Strategic and International Studies indicate that cyberattacks and cybercrime account for between $24 and as much as $120 billion in economic and intellectual property loss per year in the U.S. That is the equivalent of .2 to .8 percent of our GDP. The same CSIS study suggests that $100 billion in losses due to cyberattacks is the equivalent of over half a million lost U.S. jobs. As we have seen with the OPM cyberattack, more than 22 million Federal employees, retirees and applicants had their personal data stolen, including--most troublingly--information on their security clearance background investigations. The scope of this breach was unprecedented. As the FBI Director told the Intelligence Committee recently, this is a ``huge deal'' and represents a treasure trove of information for potential adversaries. But this is a serious problem that isn't limited to government, as we have already seen with recent breaches involving Anthem, CareFirst, Target, Neiman Marcus, Home Depot, and banks like J.P. Morgan, just to name a few. Both the private and public sector need to be better prepared for an increasing number of these cyberattacks. To figure out how to protect consumers' financial data, last year I held the first hearing in Congress into data breaches in the aftermath of the Target breach. One takeaway was how much more serious private sector and government entities need to be in investing in infrastructure and talent to secure their systems from cyberattack and breach. While there is always a risk of breaches, we can significantly mitigate those risks by increasing our ability to detect and respond to attacks. I also believe we must get serious about passing cybersecurity legislation. This is also why I supported the Cyber Information Sharing Act (CISA) that passed in the Senate Intelligence Committee 14-1 in March. A couple years ago, Senators Lieberman and Collins had a comprehensive cybersecurity bill which was unable to pass in the Senate. Unfortunately, when the bill did not pass, so did many of the good-government provisions such as strengthening the ability of the government to protect the ``Dot-gov'' infrastructure. While some of the language in the Lieberman-Collins bill regarding the DHS's role in cybersecurity did make it into law in December 2014, these changes did not go far enough. That is why today I have introduced with Senator Collins, Senator Mikulski, Senator Coats, Senator Ayotte and Senator McCaskill the Federal Information Security Management Reform Act, FISMRA, of 2015. This legislation would give the DHS strengthened authorities to enforce standards, employ cyber threat detection technology and defensive countermeasures, and to conduct threat and vulnerability analyses across all civilian U.S. Government agencies. Our bill would affect federal agencies only, except defense and intelligence agencies, not the private sector. The basic problem with protecting U.S. Government information systems is that while DHS has the responsibility to protect the ``Dot-gov'' domain, right now it does not have the ``teeth'' to actually enforce security standards or fix vulnerabilities. It is likely that if the DHS had the additional authorities we are proposing this could have helped to discover the OPM breach sooner. In fact, OPM only discovered the breach after implementing a cybersecurity tool that was recommended by the DHS. Our bill would give the DHS secretary the authority to direct--not request--that agencies undertake needed corrective actions to protect their cyber and information systems. Now, some government agencies systems may already be pretty good--so the DHS may not need to issue them directives. But I also know that we are not where we want to be. While the breach at OPM was and continues to be devastating to those federal employees who are affected, we need to remember that cybersecurity is not just an issue at OPM. A recent article in the New York Times quoted the President's cyber advisor, Michael Daniels, as saying ``it's safe to say that federal agencies are not where we want them to be across the board,'' that the bureaucracy needed a ``mind-set shift,'' that would put cybersecurity at the top of their list of priorities, and that ``we clearly need to be moving faster.'' Likewise, a recent audit of the Federal Aviation Administration's network in January cited ``significant security control weaknesses . . . placing the safe and uninterrupted operation of the nation's air traffic control system at increased and unnecessary risk.'' The FAA's former chief information security officer told the press that he had been frustrated by the failure to address obvious security holes in its most important networks. Similarly, at the Department of Energy's network that contains sensitive information on critical infrastructure and nuclear propulsion, investigators found ``numerous holes,'' according to the New York Times. At the IRS network, auditors found 69 vulnerabilities. I believe it is not a matter of if, but of when government systems will again be hit by a major cyberattack. And that is why I believe we cannot wait to give one primary entity the authority--especially when it already has the responsibility--to ensure that all ``Dot-gov'' government agencies meet robust cybersecurity standards, and that they are able to deploy tools and technology across the government to detect and prevent cyberattacks like the ones we saw at OPM. The Department of Homeland Security is such an entity. I know that some of my colleagues have argued that the NSA is the best in government at countering the cyber threat. I think that the NSA's capabilities are impressive. They do an excellent job protecting our defense and intelligence information systems. However, it would be unfeasible to put the NSA in charge of the United States' civilian cybersecurity. DHS cyber capabilities have been steadily improving. It is deploying innovative tools like EINSTEIN 3A. It has an extremely capable National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, NCCIC, located in Virginia, that already detects threats and promotes information sharing with industries through the so-called ISACs, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, that cover a range of industries from Aviation, Defense Industries, the Financial and Banking sectors, Electricity, IT, Communications and others. As DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson recently stated: ``Legally, each agency and department head has the responsibility for their own system-- legally, and I stress that to my colleagues. We have the responsibility for the overall protection of the Federal civilian dot-gov world [. . .] [W]here we need help in protecting Federal cybersecurity is legal-- making express our legal authority to receive information from other departments and governments. [. . .] [W]e want the express legal authority to make it plain that when we utilize things like EINSTEIN, EINSTEIN 3A, those other agencies are authorized to share information with us, to give us access to our network.'' In short, this bill would allow DHS--which already has the responsibility to protect ``Dot-gov'' networks--the authority and the ability to deploy tools and technology across the government to proactively detect and prevent cyberattacks like the ones we saw at OPM. The alternative is continuing the status quo, where each agency-- no matter how poorly--monitors its own networks and only asks for outside assistance when it feels like it. That doesn't work. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan bill.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Federal Information Security Management Reform Act, FISMA Reform, of 2015, which I introduced today with Senator Collins, Senator Mikulski, Senator Coats, Senator Ayotte, and Senator McCaskill. This legislation will give the Department of Homeland Security the power to make sure that civilian government agencies--like OPM--have adequate cyber defenses against these kinds of attacks. Cyberattacks present one of the most critical national and economic threats that this Nation faces. As the FBI Director recently stated, there are two types of companies in the U.S.--those that have been hacked by China, and those that do not yet know they have been hacked. Estimates by the Center for Strategic and International Studies indicate that cyberattacks and cybercrime account for between $24 and as much as $120 billion in economic and intellectual property loss per year in the U.S. That is the equivalent of .2 to .8 percent of our GDP. The same CSIS study suggests that $100 billion in losses due to cyberattacks is the equivalent of over half a million lost U.S. jobs. As we have seen with the OPM cyberattack, more than 22 million Federal employees, retirees and applicants had their personal data stolen, including--most troublingly--information on their security clearance background investigations. The scope of this breach was unprecedented. As the FBI Director told the Intelligence Committee recently, this is a ``huge deal'' and represents a treasure trove of information for potential adversaries. But this is a serious problem that isn't limited to government, as we have already seen with recent breaches involving Anthem, CareFirst, Target, Neiman Marcus, Home Depot, and banks like J.P. Morgan, just to name a few. Both the private and public sector need to be better prepared for an increasing number of these cyberattacks. To figure out how to protect consumers' financial data, last year I held the first hearing in Congress into data breaches in the aftermath of the Target breach. One takeaway was how much more serious private sector and government entities need to be in investing in infrastructure and talent to secure their systems from cyberattack and breach. While there is always a risk of breaches, we can significantly mitigate those risks by increasing our ability to detect and respond to attacks. I also believe we must get serious about passing cybersecurity legislation. This is also why I supported the Cyber Information Sharing Act (CISA) that passed in the Senate Intelligence Committee 14-1 in March. A couple years ago, Senators Lieberman and Collins had a comprehensive cybersecurity bill which was unable to pass in the Senate. Unfortunately, when the bill did not pass, so did many of the good-government provisions such as strengthening the ability of the government to protect the ``Dot-gov'' infrastructure. While some of the language in the Lieberman-Collins bill regarding the DHS's role in cybersecurity did make it into law in December 2014, these changes did not go far enough. That is why today I have introduced with Senator Collins, Senator Mikulski, Senator Coats, Senator Ayotte and Senator McCaskill the Federal Information Security Management Reform Act, FISMRA, of 2015. This legislation would give the DHS strengthened authorities to enforce standards, employ cyber threat detection technology and defensive countermeasures, and to conduct threat and vulnerability analyses across all civilian U.S. Government agencies. Our bill would affect federal agencies only, except defense and intelligence agencies, not the private sector. The basic problem with protecting U.S. Government information systems is that while DHS has the responsibility to protect the ``Dot-gov'' domain, right now it does not have the ``teeth'' to actually enforce security standards or fix vulnerabilities. It is likely that if the DHS had the additional authorities we are proposing this could have helped to discover the OPM breach sooner. In fact, OPM only discovered the breach after implementing a cybersecurity tool that was recommended by the DHS. Our bill would give the DHS secretary the authority to direct--not request--that agencies undertake needed corrective actions to protect their cyber and information systems. Now, some government agencies systems may already be pretty good--so the DHS may not need to issue them directives. But I also know that we are not where we want to be. While the breach at OPM was and continues to be devastating to those federal employees who are affected, we need to remember that cybersecurity is not just an issue at OPM. A recent article in the New York Times quoted the President's cyber advisor, Michael Daniels, as saying ``it's safe to say that federal agencies are not where we want them to be across the board,'' that the bureaucracy needed a ``mind-set shift,'' that would put cybersecurity at the top of their list of priorities, and that ``we clearly need to be moving faster.'' Likewise, a recent audit of the Federal Aviation Administration's network in January cited ``significant security control weaknesses . . . placing the safe and uninterrupted operation of the nation's air traffic control system at increased and unnecessary risk.'' The FAA's former chief information security officer told the press that he had been frustrated by the failure to address obvious security holes in its most important networks. Similarly, at the Department of Energy's network that contains sensitive information on critical infrastructure and nuclear propulsion, investigators found ``numerous holes,'' according to the New York Times. At the IRS network, auditors found 69 vulnerabilities. I believe it is not a matter of if, but of when government systems will again be hit by a major cyberattack. And that is why I believe we cannot wait to give one primary entity the authority--especially when it already has the responsibility--to ensure that all ``Dot-gov'' government agencies meet robust cybersecurity standards, and that they are able to deploy tools and technology across the government to detect and prevent cyberattacks like the ones we saw at OPM. The Department of Homeland Security is such an entity. I know that some of my colleagues have argued that the NSA is the best in government at countering the cyber threat. I think that the NSA's capabilities are impressive. They do an excellent job protecting our defense and intelligence information systems. However, it would be unfeasible to put the NSA in charge of the United States' civilian cybersecurity. DHS cyber capabilities have been steadily improving. It is deploying innovative tools like EINSTEIN 3A. It has an extremely capable National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center, NCCIC, located in Virginia, that already detects threats and promotes information sharing with industries through the so-called ISACs, Information Sharing and Analysis Centers, that cover a range of industries from Aviation, Defense Industries, the Financial and Banking sectors, Electricity, IT, Communications and others. As DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson recently stated: ``Legally, each agency and department head has the responsibility for their own system-- legally, and I stress that to my colleagues. We have the responsibility for the overall protection of the Federal civilian dot-gov world [. . .] [W]here we need help in protecting Federal cybersecurity is legal-- making express our legal authority to receive information from other departments and governments. [. . .] [W]e want the express legal authority to make it plain that when we utilize things like EINSTEIN, EINSTEIN 3A, those other agencies are authorized to share information with us, to give us access to our network.'' In short, this bill would allow DHS--which already has the responsibility to protect ``Dot-gov'' networks--the authority and the ability to deploy tools and technology across the government to proactively detect and prevent cyberattacks like the ones we saw at OPM. The alternative is continuing the status quo, where each agency-- no matter how poorly--monitors its own networks and only asks for outside assistance when it feels like it. That doesn't work. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this bipartisan bill.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of an amendment I have filed to the Every Child Achieves Act that will be brought up, I believe, later today. In the spirit of my friend the Senator from Texas I am glad he has joined me on this amendment. I know as we get into this terribly important education bill, I want to commend Senator Alexander, Senator Murray for their leadership in bringing it to the floor and trying to wrestle through the right balance of between Federal, State, and local partnerships in education. I look forward to being a part of that debate. While we will spend hours on the floor of the Senate debating issues around accountability and assessment, terribly important issues, there is one issue I believe all of us in this body can agree upon, to make certain we ensure that all dollars that are spent on education are spent appropriately and in an efficient way and that most of those dollars end up in the classroom. This was a conversation I started when I was Governor of Virginia. When I looked around at the Commonwealth of Virginia, where we spend close to $9 billion a year on public education, I realized that many of the same debates we are having in the Chamber we were having in Virginia at that time. But again, one area where there was complete agreement was to make sure those dollars spent on education were spent efficiently. Too often school divisions, quite honestly, didn't know how to spend using best practices in terms of bus routes, energy usage, back-office staffing. How do you make sure you can take best practices around--I mentioned this was being done in Virginia, from around the State--and make sure those dollars were better spent, more efficiently, in the classroom. Well, we looked around the country and we actually found a program in Texas--again, why I am so grateful my friend the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, has joined me on this amendment. We put in place a program to bring better accountability to our school divisions. As I mentioned, too many school divisions don't have the ability to assess whether they are spending operational funds in the smartest way. My amendment helps school districts figure out how to be thoughtful about their operations budget, which again allows them to put more money back into their classrooms. I mentioned this was an initiative I started as Governor back in 2003 in Virginia. I mentioned as well that Virginia was spending a combined $9 billion in local, State, and Federal support for public schools. I felt it was very important we make sure that as much of those resources were spent in classroom instruction and not in back-office administrative functions. So, in Virginia, we asked our Department of Planning and Budget to design a school efficiency review program. Our public school divisions actually volunteered--a local school superintendent actually volunteered to work with the State Department of Education. It took some level of trust, but they volunteered to undergo a review of their noninstructional functions, things like human resources, purchasing, facilities, transportation, and food service. So we launched this program, and over a decade reviews have been conducted in 41 localities around the Commonwealth, in rural, suburban, and urban districts. Over the course of the history of this program, Virginia's program has identified $45 million in annual potential savings. In Virginia, each review cost an average of about $110,000 and produced an average annual savings of $1.1 million, a return in investment of nearly 9-to-1, a return that allowed these dollars to be more valuably spent on instruction. These reviews recommend commonsense steps: software programs to improve bus transportation routes, enterprise-wide facilities management, best practices in purchasing and personnel, and smart, responsible steps to conserve limited resources and direct those savings into the classroom. As I mentioned, we initially borrowed this concept from Texas. Since that time, additional States, including Oklahoma, Minnesota, New York, Kansas, and Arizona, have implemented similar programs. This commonsense best practice should be available to school districts nationwide. That is why I am proud, along with Senator Cornyn, to offer an amendment that will allow States to use their title IX consolidated administrative funds to pay for fiscal support teams. This proposal will empower localities with the information they need to better allocate limited resources so they get a maximum impact in the classroom. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. I believe this amendment will be brought up later by either Senator Murray or Senator Alexander, and I look forward to its consideration tomorrow. I yield the floor. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about the changing nature of our economy. I come to talk about a part of our economy that I don't think most folks in this Chamber understand. It goes by many names. It is called the sharing economy, the on-demand economy, the gig economy, the 1099 economy. There is a lot of discussion, actually, in some circles about exactly what to call this changing nature of our economy, but there is no dispute that it represents a new dynamic and growing part of our American economy. It used to be that when you were introduced to someone, one of the first questions asked was, Where do you work? Today, particularly for the 80-plus million millennials who make up the largest age cohort in our society, the more appropriate question to ask is, What are you working on? That is because the American workforce is increasingly made up of freelancers, independent contractors, and the self-employed. Yet Washington mostly has remained on the sidelines as our economy, the workforce, and the workplace have undergone what may be the most dramatic transformation literally in decades. By my count, as folks announced yesterday, almost 25 people are running for President in 2016. Frankly, I find it remarkable that none of them in either party are even talking about these fundamental changes in how, when, and where Americans are currently working because, whether by economic necessity or by choice, one-third or more of the American workers now find themselves piecing together two, three, or more on-demand opportunities to make a living. As I said earlier, it is called the sharing economy, the on-demand economy, or the gig economy. It includes, as I mentioned earlier as well, a lot of young and--at least they think so--invincible millennials, 80 million- strong, who began entering the workforce in the year 2000 and afterward. The good news about this generation is it is the best educated, the most diverse and tolerant, the most technologically adept, and the most comfortable with disruptive change of any generation America has seen. And that is good. Most millennials grew up in the glow of a computer monitor. Since childhood, most have maintained an online identity and network in real time with friends. Members of this generation can, if they choose, graduate from a college or university without ever stepping foot on its campus. Armed with a tablet or smart phone, they can successfully work for an employer without ever sitting at a desk from 9 to 5. But it is not just the millennials who are pushing the envelope in how, when, and where people work. It also includes many middle-aged professionals, unexpectedly downsized at midcareer. It includes baby boomers--folks from my generation and a number of my college classmates--who have been hit with a premature end to what they thought before the recession was a solid career. Frankly, it also includes a lot of folks for whom working multiple jobs at the same time is nothing new. They call it survival, and it hasn't gotten any easier. Yet, here in Washington, too few policymakers are thinking creatively about ways to provide more Americans with more footholds into this new world of on-demand or freelance work. In addition, today we have a whole set of new online platforms, companies that didn't even exist 5 years ago, such as Airbnb, Uber, TaskRabbit, and Etsy. Think about Airbnb alone--it already has more rooms available than Marriott. These platforms match supply and demand for things people never even thought about monetizing before--a room, a ride, a specific skill, even the whole notion of free time. But many of the business models in this on-demand economy are built upon the premise that workers are independent contractors, not employees. This means that employers can end the relationship at any time. Much of the work is project-based. Contracts and clients can dry up, and it is tougher to create new ones without an office to go to. It also means employers do not have to pay costs or contribute to health insurance or retirement. They also particularly don't pay a share of unemployment or workers' compensation. The whole notion of the social safety net and social contract between the employer and the worker has totally changed. If we think back to my parents' generation 40 years ago--I think about my father. He didn't make a lot of money but knew that he would get benefits, that when he retired, he would get a pension. That changed in my generation, the baby boomers. You didn't work for the same place. You moved around to a few different jobs. We moved into what I would call the 401(k) generation, defined benefits. We moved to defined contribution. The fact is, today these on-demand workers, even if they are doing relatively well, exist on a high wire with no social safety net beneath them. That may work for many of them when times are going well--until the day they aren't. That is why ultimately, when things go wrong for this new gig economy, workers without any safety net, without any unemployment, without any workmen's comp, could fall and ultimately end up on the taxpayers' dime. That is why Washington needs to catch up and start asking some tough policy questions--but also with the recognition that with the growth in this part of the economy, Washington can't impose a solution. First, the biggest challenge may be this fundamental change in the employer-employee relationship. Are there other options for providing a safety net of basic benefits for workers who are not connected to a traditional full-time employer? Who should administer it? Should it be opt-in or opt-out? We could look to the health care exchanges as a public-private model now--in many cases--that they largely appear to be working. Could we think about an unemployment or workmen's comp exchange that workers and employers could work with? We might borrow the idea of the hour bank used by the traditional trade unions for 60 years. A carpenter would move from one contractor to another, committing a little bit of resources, the employer committing resources, but it was administered by a trusted third party. Other countries--primarily in the EU--are experimenting with worker- administered pools. Freelancers put in a certain amount of income based on the income they would need to replace if they got sick or injured, and they collect it if they are sidelined for more than a month. Part of a solution might even be consumer-driven. What if customers could designate a portion of their payments to Uber or Airbnb into a designated fund that helps support workers--a social insurance fund? There may be other public-private models out there, and they deserve a look, too. Second, this is too important to leave to the courts. While litigation is underway about whether on-demand workers are independent contractors or employees, we cannot and must not leave this to the courts alone. We learned just today of a ruling from California labor regulators--a ruling that is expected to be challenged. California labor regulators have determined that Uber drivers are to be considered employees and not independent contractors. This ruling demonstrates yet again why Federal policymakers need to reexamine the whole notion of 20th-century definitions and employment classifications when we are thinking about a 21st-century workforce. As I mentioned, as many as one-third of American workers are participating in some aspect of this on-demand economy. We have a responsibility to provide clarity and predictability instead of allowing inconsistency as these issues are litigated on a case-by-case, State-by-State basis. Third, the Federal Government needs to become much more nimble. Frankly, folks on both sides of the aisle would acknowledge that the Federal Government operates at less than dial-up speed. We need better data about how many people are a part of the gig and sharing economies. At the request of Senators Murray and Gillibrand, the GAO reported last month that the Department of Labor has not been tasked with a deep-dive on workforce data in more than 10 years. Better data would tell us a lot about who is working in this sharing economy and what characteristics they share. Better data would result in better policy. As Federal policymakers, we also need to recommit to extending broadband to underserved and unserved regions. You can't be linked in if you don't have a link. In addition, we should streamline the hodgepodge of Federal programs we have set up to support innovators and entrepreneurs. These programs are scattered across dozens of Federal agencies, and they exist in a budgetary cycle of feast or famine. We cannot ignore the opportunity costs of this generation's combined $1.2 trillion in student debt. It is limiting options, opportunities, and economic mobility for an entire generation. Finally, this millennial generation is beginning to fuel a tremendous shift in one of the most traditional anchors of America's economy, and we need to, quite honestly, recognize and respond to it. Younger Americans are making it clear that in many cases they prefer sharing and renting over ownership. I was talking to Brad Chesky, the CEO of Airbnb, the other day. As I mentioned, Airbnb already provides more rooms than Marriott, and this is a company that didn't even exist 5 years ago. The CEO offered this comparison: His parents' generation--my generation--defined the idea of success in America as owning a nice house, having two cars, putting your kids through college, and maybe, just maybe, if you did well, getting a little house at the beach or on the lake. But he says the hallmarks of success for this millennial generation are much more different. Younger people want control of their data and online reputations. They don't necessarily aspire to own things such as cars or houses; they want to collect cool experiences, which they can best document and share online. I ask all my colleagues, the next time you are at a townhall, ask your audience: Would you rather have a home mortgage deduction or a direct credit against your student debt? It doesn't matter what the age group is, 90 percent overall will say: Give me that credit on my student debt rather than on a home mortgage deduction. Think about this. As policymakers, this generational move away from ownership and toward sharing and renting could have huge impacts for every level of government. That is because we currently use our Tax Code to reward ownership of everything from homes, to vehicles, to factories. Property taxes are how State and local governments pay for public schools, public health, and public safety. If we have an economy increasingly built on sharing and renting and not ownership, that could have tremendous ramifications. I mentioned that 5 years ago no one had even heard of Airbnb or Uber. And while we don't know what the disruptive technology of tomorrow might look like, we know developments such as driverless cars, same-day drone deliveries, and 3-D printing are right around the corner. Some version is here to stay. As policymakers, we need to ask the right questions, discuss the appropriate rules of the road, and know when we need to get out of the way. Instead of trying to make this new economy look like the old, Washington should encourage more of this innovation, and we need to work to create more opportunities and more upward economic mobility for everybody. I, for one, look forward to continuing this discussion today and in the weeks to come. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my Virginia colleague Senator Tim Kaine in expressing concern over the chairman's measure to cut $1.7 billion in funding from specific operations and maintenance accounts in an effort to streamline defense headquarters functions. The Department of Defense is in the midst of implementing a 20 percent headquarters reduction that defense officials have planned over time to ensure that consequences of the reductions are known and managed. Like my colleague, I am concerned that the chairman's proposed legislation would require additional headquarters reductions, the results of which have not been properly considered. While I support continued efficiency gains within the Department of Defense, including--where merited--reducing headquarters functions, I believe that before such cuts are taken, the Department must conduct a thorough analysis of the best methods to streamline their organizations for the most efficient staffing solutions while remaining viable and effective. At a time when department officials are managing through enormous budget pressure in an increasingly complex national security environment, I fear the Department will be forced to reduce funding to critical programs. Finally, the men and women who will likely bear the brunt of these cuts are performing the very work that Congress charged the Department of Defense to conduct. Even this authorization includes additional reports, studies, and demands for improvement in areas like program management, personnel planning, acquisition, and sexual assault. These programs require a professional cadre to conduct the required analysis and propose recommendations for improvement. I look forward to passing a defense authorization that adequately supports the Department that has been at war for nearly 15 years.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize that today, April 16, 2015, is National Healthcare Decisions Day. National Healthcare Decisions Day exists to inspire, educate and empower the public and providers about the importance of advance care planning. Started by a Richmond attorney as a local, grassroots initiative in Virginia, NHDD became an annual event in 2008 and today is recognized across all 50 States. Faith-based groups, doctors and nurses, hospitals, patients, and caregivers alike are engaged in these efforts. It is critical that Virginians and all Americans--both patients and providers--engage in advance care planning, and that they have access to clear, consistent, and concise information on how to make these critical health care decisions. Today, on National Healthcare Decisions Day, it is important to discuss preferences and goals with family and friends--and this starts with filling out an advance directive. But advanced care planning is about much more than that, and in the last several years, there has been a growing awareness of the need to transform advanced care, both among providers and families. First, broader transformations in health care, especially the movement towards paying for quality, not volume, of services offer opportunities to speed the adoption of effective advanced care programs. Our health care system does a great job paying for procedures: surgery, chemotherapy, hip replacements. It does a not so good job paying for health care providers to spend face-to-face time with patients, helping them to choose among many options with uncertain outcomes. Improvements to care planning would give individuals and their families the ability to make smarter decisions. It would provide additional information and support so they can make informed choices based upon those values and goals. Meanwhile, across the country, people are innovating and creating new models of care to provide patients with the tools and support to make their own advanced care decisions. For example, in my own State of Virginia, a Richmond Academy of Medicine initiative called Honoring Choices Virginia promises to fill a critical hole. This innovative partnership involves the academy and three independent health care systems working to adopt nationally-recognized best practices, and adapting them to the needs of patients, families, doctors, and hospitals of the local community in Central Virginia. This commitment to patients and families in our region sets an example for the rest of the Commonwealth and the country. It is similarly essential that we consider how Federal policies impact patients and their families during times of serious illness. For example, the vast majority of these patients receive care funded by Medicaid and Medicare, and many of them are elderly or disabled. Medicare, however, does not adequately reimburse physicians or other important members of the care planning team, such as nurses or social workers, for systems to support patients and their families. Likewise, faced with an uneven patchwork of advance directive laws across States, providers too often base their actions on the technicalities of forms or on fear of being sued. Such hurdles make it difficult for health care providers to focus on what the patient really wants. In the 111th and 112th Congress, I introduced the Senior Navigation and Planning Act, to help people grapple with the challenges of caring for those with advanced illness. And in the 113th Congress, Senator Isakson and I introduced the Care Planning Act. The purpose of the Care Planning Act is to align the care people want with the level of care they get. It does not limit choices--it works to make sure people are made fully aware of the broad range of choices they have. I hope to reintroduce the Care Planning Act in the coming weeks. I believe this effort is critical, not just from my time serving as a Governor and as a Senator, but also through the eyes of a loved one who struggled with these issues. My mother suffered from Alzheimer's disease for 10 years, and for 9 of those years, she couldn't speak. My father, sister and I found grappling with the challenges of caring for her difficult. The difficulty was greater because, when she was first diagnosed, my family didn't take the opportunity to talk in an honest and fully informed way with her and her health care providers about the full array of health care options available, or about what her priorities would be during the final years of her life. It is not easy, and this is a subject that most people do their best to avoid. But it is critical. National Healthcare Decisions Day reminds us of the importance of discussing ways to improve advanced care planning at all levels--Federal, State, local--and above all, amongst Americans and their loved ones.